BeliefNet.com offers an interesting debate on the question of evolution this week. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Research Project and author of the best-selling book, The Language of God, argues that an affirmation of evolutionary theory is compatible with the belief that God designed the cosmos. Indeed, Dr. Collins goes so far as to suggest that an affirmation of evolution still allows for an understanding that God designed the human species.

Conservative Christians are often lampooned as the last hold-outs against the supposedly invincible theory of evolution. This is untrue on several counts. First, surveys consistently demonstrate that the vast majority of Americans reject Darwinian evolution as the explanation of human origins. Second, with specific reference to major religious groups, Orthodox Judaism is also steadfastly opposed to evolutionary theory.

Daniel C. Dennett is at it again. In his new book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Dennett applies his radical vision of Darwinism to belief in God, and the entire question of faith and belief. As you might expect, Dennett doesn’t think much of belief in God.

Given the public bluster of the evolutionary establishment, one would think that these scientists and teachers of science would be up to any challenge to their cherished evolutionary orthodoxy. If they are so certain that their theory is correct and their worldview is superior, why are they so afraid to have the issues debated before the public?

Culture critic John Carey of The Times [London] reviews Lewis Wolpert’s new book, Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief. We are again reminded that evolutionary theory comes complete with a worldview that must attempt to explain everyting in purely materialistic terms

Scientific American has published a review of several new books on Charles Darwin and Darwinism in its latest issue. The review is by Jonathan Weiner, author of The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time. Weiner’s review will get your attention, mostly because of its over-the-top adulation of Darwin.

Yesterday, the 197th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, was declared “Evolution Sunday” by a group of liberal Protestant ministers. According to The New York Times, it was observed in several hundred churches nationwide.

For the last two centuries or so, the intellectual elites have been predicting the triumph of secularization over belief in God. Thinkers ranging from Auguste Comte to Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx predicted that belief in God would evaporate as human beings gained control over the forces of nature–harnessing the power of steam in great engines, building dams across rivers to produce power, and gaining mastery over disease and physical impairments. Similarly, the prophets of the postmodern age have promised the demise of theism, arguing that belief in a personal and transcendent deity cannot survive the acids of contemporary conceptions of reality.

“What is it about even the slightest dissent from Darwin’s theory of natural selection that drives liberal elites (and even some conservative elites) bonkers?” Adam Wolfson asks that question in “Survival of the Evolution Debate: Why Darwin Is Still a Lightning Rod,” an essay published in the January 16, 2006 edition of The Weekly Standard.

Newsweek‘s magazine for college students, Current, features an interesting article, “Monkey Business,” on the campus presence of students who do not accept evolution. It’s worth a look. Writer Victoria Bosch, a senior at Penn State University, reports:

Daniel C. Dennett is one of the world’s most influential evolutionary scientists, and unlike many of his colleagues, Dennett doesn’t run away from Darwinism’s logical conclusions. Instead, he describes Darwin’s theory of evolution as a “universal acid” that completely reshapes reality, destroying those truths previously held to be enduring and unchanging. The basic incompatibility of Darwin’s theory is the one facet of Dennett’s thought we can truly appreciate.

With this posting, we begin a new feature for 2006 — Worldviews at Work. These articles will draw attention to the impact of worldviews on the way people think about the issues of the day. We’ll be looking for examples of what happens when people actually draw the necessary conclusions that their worldviews would require — and what happens when they do not.